Ajit Pai Doesn't Want You Talking About Court Ruling That Undermines His Bogus Claim That The FTC Will Protect Consumers

from the who's-desperate-now dept

We've noted a few times how the attack on net neutrality and consumer broadband privacy protections are just a small part of a massive lobbyist attempt to remove nearly all oversight of one of the least-competitive and least liked business sectors in America. Industry lobbyists (and the lawmakers and policy folk paid to love them) have made it abundantly clear that the goal is to gut FCC authority over broadband ISPs, then shovel any remaining, piddly authority to an FTC that's not only ill-equipped to handle it, but is currently engaged in a lawsuit with AT&T that could dismantle its authority over large ISPs entirely.

That FTC lawsuit was filed against AT&T after the company lied about throttling its wireless customers as part of an effort to drive unlimited customers to more expensive plans. Lower courts sided with AT&T's creative argument that the very Title II common carrier FCC classification AT&T has been fighting tooth and nail against on the net neutrality front --
exempted it from the FTC's jurisdiction. Last year, the FTC argued that should this ruling stand, it could let any company with a common carrier component (inhereted or acquired) dodge FTC oversight:

"The panel’s ruling creates an enforcement gap that would leave no federal agency able to protect millions of consumers across the country from unfair or deceptive practices or obtain redress on their behalf. Many companies provide both common-carrier and non-common-carrier services—not just telephone companies like AT&T, but also cable companies like Comcast, technology companies like Google, and energy companies like ExxonMobil (which operate common carrier oil pipelines). Companies that are not common carriers today may gain that status by offering new services or through corporate acquisitions. For example, AOL and Yahoo, which are not common carriers, are (or soon will be) owned by Verizon. The panel’s ruling calls into question the FTC’s ability to protect consumers from unlawful practices by such companies in any of their lines of business."

So again, that's the FTC warning that the AT&T court case could leave it rudderless in any attempt to protect consumers. Odd, given that Ajit Pai and his FCC staffers have been promising everyone that the FTC (which was already under-funded, over-extended, and lacked rulemaking capabilities) was the superior option when it comes to protecting consumers and competition (you can hear former FCC boss Tom Wheeler talk about how this promise is bunk here).

Fast forward to this week. Seeing an opportunity to highlight this blatant gift to the telecom sector, a coalition of 40 consumer advocacy and digital rights groups (as well as New York City) are hoping to use AT&T's legal fight with the FTC as a good reason to delay the FCC's December 14 vote to kill net neutrality. The coalition sent a a letter (pdf) to FCC boss Ajit Pai, arguing that it's irresponsible to plan a wholesale dismantling of net neutrality when one of Pai's central justifications for it (that the FTC will rush in and fill the enforcement gap) may be entirely untenable:

"Rushing to a vote before the Ninth Circuit resolves this decision cavalierly risks the purported safeguards that you and other supporters of the Draft Order have repeatedly declared will protect consumers from abusive or anti-competitive practices. Astoundingly, after committing the entire future of consumer protection from broadband access providers to the FTC, the Draft Order cavalierly dismisses the ongoing litigation that deprived the FTC of any jurisdiction to carry out the job[...] The question that should concern the Commission is whether or not the en banc panel will likewise deprive the FTC of jurisdiction over broadband access providers."

While an excellent point, this isn't likely to sway the FCC's thinking because, again, weakening FCC and FTC authority is the entire point and is exactly what large ISP lobbyists have been gunning for. Companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon would obviously prefer it if neither the FCC nor FTC had the authority to actually protect consumers from abuse of a lack of competition in the sector. Granted, if sound logic and compelling points could make the FCC backtrack from its extremely unpopular attack on net neutrality, Ajit Pai and friends would have retreated from this myopic assault months ago.

"This is just evidence that supporters of heavy-handed Internet regulations are becoming more desperate by the day as their effort to defeat Chairman Pai's plan to restore Internet freedom has stalled. The vote will proceed as scheduled on December 14."

What happens next? Once the FTC and FCC are left rudderless, ISPs have made it clear that they want the FCC to slap down any states that get any funny ideas about policing anti-competitive behavior in the sector, whether that comes in the form of net neutrality violations or privacy abuses. FCC staffers have made it equally clear that they're happy to oblige. Again, this all ends with little to no ability to protect consumers and competition from AT&T, Verizon or Comcast's monopoly strangleholds over the last mile at any level. That might be ok if the government fixed the sector's competition problems first, but Ajit Pai's FCC has made it abundantly clear that trying to hide the sector's competition problems (a prime symptom of regulatory capture) is going to take top priority.

Reader Comments

There will be an inevitable pile of lawsuits against the FCC as soon as the vote is concluded (the result by now is already decided, has been since Trump got elected). Still they can just pretend they aren't seeing NN violations until the next chairman/woman comes so prepare for a few more years of fuckery.

I do think Pai won't manage to repeal NN, he will be stopped via courts because his arguments are incredibly weak. And he can't make all the judges ignore the myriad of evidence that NN benefits everybody.

Re:

I don't think Pai's argument against the FCC enforcing net neutrality are weak.

The FCC under Wheeler attempted several ways of fixing law makers at state and federal level being bribed to look the other way when telecom companies screwed over the customers and misappropriated dedicated money and resources.

Classifying internet providers as utilities was just the last (and actually pretty effective attempt) to fix the consequences of blatant corruption by other politicians and agencies.

But the FCC would not have been first choice to fix the worst consequences of lawmakers stuffing their pockets playing monopoly. It just decided to fix what nobody else wanted to see fixed.

Pai's job is to get corruption working smoothly again (and he'll probably get some more or less obvious payoff from lobbying pools) and he removes the somewhat unexpected stumbling stone in the form of the previous FCC.

What we really need is the courage to make network neutrality law, not a regulatory punching bag, swinging to the tune of the latest FCC chairman.

Courage, and to ensure The People are driving the legislation, rather than the corporations. Techdirt has noted that "the legislature will step in to save the day" has been part of the playbook of the current anti-NN activism on the part of corporations.

Re:

What we really need is the courage to make network neutrality law, not a regulatory punching bag, swinging to the tune of the latest FCC chairman.

This is not as much about "courage" of the lawmakers but about not letting themselves be bribed with money, handouts, and ready-made legislation by the big telecom companies. If they'd be doing the job they are elected and paid to do (rather than angling for extra pay in return for shirking their duties), we wouldn't have needed the last FCC chairman to step up to the plate in the first place.

Wheeler's background is so similar to Ajit Pai's that one could not really have expected him to step up the plate and do the job to the benefit of the people.

He was the odd man out, not Pai. That should have made him a keeper if things went according to the wishes of the populace.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I am nothing special

And yet every reply you toss here is a reminder of how you managed to get a network of friends to support you despite not finishing conventional education and that affords you to privilege to mock everybody else.

Sure... you're nothing special. That's at least something everybody agrees on, but probably not for the same reasons you think they are.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re:

I don't think Pai's argument against the FCC enforcing net neutrality are weak.

They are, though.

Pai's arguments are that Title II classification has hurt broadband investment, and also that public opinion isn't as solidly in favor of Title II regulation as the public comment form period suggests. These are not good arguments.

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

As a BBS operator of old, who had shut down their BBS because folks didn't need to use BBSs to talk any more, I welcome this repeal of Net Neutrality. Us BBS operators, often for a small fee or as volunteers, kept everyone talking locally, and I look forward to bringing it back up soon. Of course, I had to deal with AT&T and their stupid "we're sorry your data line isn't getting too much noise...its all the water at the bottom of the rack that is causing it" excuses, but at least I could usually get help from the union linemen when things got bad...which I don't currently get from the technical support staff of the ISP.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

> Comcast is known for cutting the copper lines when they install. I figured that was destruction of property but they seem to get away with it.

Now that is f-ed up. Luckily I don't have Comcast, and while Cox pulled the copper wires out of the NTU when they attached their cable phone connection, the AT&T wires are sitting in the box ready to reconnect. Both Cox and AT&T wires are sitting unconnected now though as I use the NTU for an internal intercom system now. But I could reconnect either if I wanted to.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

No that's just anyone with a backhoe. Remember to always keep a bit of copper line on you. If you're ever lost, just bury it in the ground and someone will be along shortly to hit it with their digging equipment.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"What does one do when they are paying a significant amount of money every month for a service that has become unusable?"

If it's totally unusable, there may be reparations available. If it's usable, but only truly usable for accessing things owned by the ISP, and there is no competition then you have to pay for substandard service if you require those things.

"Cord cutting is real, what makes the internet untouchable?"

Cord cutting is the act of discontinuing one type of service and getting the content via another. There are many things in the modern world which have no offline alternative, so where would you suggest they go to if they cut that cord?

Re:

I theory, but the FTC is much more restricted in what it can do. Especially if they have common carrier removed.

The whole reason that the courts made them use Title II on the ISPs was because they said that the government have no authority to regulate their internal business practices unless they are a common carrier.

As such, it's not too surprising to see that Pai's response to a request for a delay involved calling net neutrality supporters "desperate"

Ummm, Ajit, we ARE desperate. Every internet connected American is about to get screwed over by your bought and paid for commission, and despite all the evidence to the contrary of why net neutrality rules should be repealed, you're still going to proceed with something that has very real and very dire consequences for us. Maybe it's not the definition of "desperate" you were thinking of, but here we are.

Re:

And this is why you should not allow any of your dealings with any business to be internet only. If all consumers were to demand methods other than internet ... and take their business elsewhere even when it is costly and or painful - what other recourse does anyone have anymore?

Re: Re:

You really have no idea how the world works nowadays do you? Let me introduce you to the 21st century.

It is impossible to divorce many business models from the internet. And even if it was, that's NOT A BAD THING! Computer technology and the internet has brought us so many advantages and advances, not just in business and tech but also science, art and culture, philosophy, mathematics, the list goes on. The good it has brought FAR outweighs the bad.

Your solution "well just don't use the internet" is laughably misguided and ignorant. The internet is not the problem, it is the companies that control access to the internet. Why should we punish ourselves for the actions of a few overly powerful corporations? Wouldn't the better solution be to make sure those corporations can't screw with us?

We don't punish car makers for making cars that go faster than the speed limit, we punish the people who choose to drive their cars dangerously. No difference here.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

It's their MO.

If you say this, they twist it into that.If you say them, they twist it to also mean others too.You say you want to kill one regulation, they scream that you want to kill them all.Having a sane and civil conversation without misdirection is not within their capacities.They will also constantly claim that you have never offered solutions regardless of any truth.

If you fail just one of their many litmus tests are considered to have failed them all. You are to be ridiculed, marginalized, misquoted, and laughed at.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

No, i think they've got the point right on. Some businesses have no options 'other than the internet', either because the nature of the business isn't in the physical world to begin with or because they have a niche so narrow/uncommon that brick and mortar stores are impractical at best.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I dropped out of high school because I bored as fuck. My terrible teachers did not advance my education, I did.

I have a six figure salary and enjoy rubbing my success in the faces of everyone that said I was going to fail because I did not blindly follow the "traditional" education path.

Check out this article. In many ways I have the same complaint. I come here to TD and watch all you "think you know it alls" yap about like you have a clue. truth is... you don't and no matter how many different ways I say it, you still never understand.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

For the most part yes.

The people that are actually unique are all long, just like that article describes.

It is far to easy to use, abuse, and trick the lot of you.

Like many of the founding fathers have stated... you will give up your liberty willingly for safety. It's not even a secret, it is just defacto human history. Something bad appears and someone else bad takes advantage of your fear to get you to let them control you for your own safety.

Works most of the time too... like MOST of the time to the degree that it is just short of all of the time.

Re: Don't use the internet

"You really have no idea how the world works nowadays do you? Let me introduce you to the 21st century."

Everybody knows how dependent on the internet the world is and nobody expects 100% participation.

Even for those who are able it's an enormous sacrifice anyway. But this is a fight for the internet itself. What the world depends will not be guaranteed without net neutrality.

Corruption in the US is approaching despotic regime level. In some ways it's worse. In countries with rampant corruption it's still technically illegal.

At this time, regulation is impossible because the regulator is a captured agency.

For younger people who have never experienced a world without technology giving up the internet is not only difficult for day-to-day business communication but also recreation which is internet dependent.

Their participation will probably require the support of others to help them fill their free time with alternative stimulating activities.

I am a Gen Xer. I experienced the beginnings of personal computing as a teenager. The first Gen Xers are now in their 50's and also have been dependent on technology for 35 years. The time without technology is a distant memory.

Re: Re:

I get what you're saying, but that simply isn't going to work. The internet has become essential to most people for a reason: it works far better than other options do.

We can't go back and make the internet non-essential again. That would basically be the same as trying to go back to a time when phones or electricity weren't considered essential. It's simply not going to happen.

Our best hope at this point is that as these horrible changes roll out over the country, lots of people wake up to the issue and Congress or the Courts are finally forced to put the reasonable oversight back into place by a backlash on the order of what happened with SOPA and PIPA.

Re: Re: Re:

I am not saying the internet is non essential. I am suggesting that in an era when your right to vote has been severely diminished or in some cases completely removed, what recourse is there other than voting with what remaining assets they have not yet taken from you?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I understand what you are getting at but what you don't understand is that what you are suggesting is just as impossible. Try cutting your bank off from the internet, let me know how that goes for getting access to any of your funds.

Our way of life is too interwoven with the internet to ever be separated from it now, even in protest. We would only harm ourselves and the businesses that aren't being total jerks. It would be like completely ditching electricity, running water, and natural gas all at the same time. Could we survive? Yes. Would it be a smart thing to do? No way in hell.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I can, and still do, walk into the bank and do business in person. I chose to do business with that bank and this was one of my criteria. I do not do any business with online only banks, that is my choice - which maybe removed at some point I suppose.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Which has what to do with them pointing out that 'vote with your wallet' isn't feasible when it comes to ISP's because there often are no other alternatives other than 'do without entirely', and 'doing without' isn't feasible for any number of reasons?

You have the 'luxury' of choosing a bank within walking distance, many people do not have the luxury of multiple ISP's to switch between, which leaves the comparison falling flat.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The government isn't, private companies are(albeit using the government to do so at times).

As for 'alternatives', you seem to be missing the fact that unlike say, a bank or bus system, for a good amount there are no alternatives.

If you don't like how your bank is acting you can go to another bank.

If you object to the local bus system you can still walk/bike/drive/carpool.

If you don't like how your ISP treats you in a large percentage of the time your options are 'Do without entirely' or 'Pay them anyway because there are no other alternatives available'.

Got a job that involves long distance, real-time communication with people in other cities/states/countries and that requires more than just talking? You kinda need the internet for that.

Want to spend the money you carefully walked down to your bank and deposited while you're in another city? A network that allows quick transfer of detailed information over vast distances is kinda helpful there.

Want to look for and/or buy something that isn't available locally? Sure would be nice to have something in place that allows people/companies to put up stuff for sale and allow transactions to take place over large distances.

You can do without the internet, in about the same way you can do without any form of transportation more advanced than a bike. Possible, but it drastically limits your options, and if you need something that the internet/advanced transportation allows you're screwed if you don't have it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Hold up...

"If you don't like how your bank is acting you can go to another bank. "

This is like saying if you don't like your ISP you can go to another ISP. They are all bound by the same regulations and operate nearly identically. It like arguing over who has the best plain peanut.. planters or tom's when they are both just peanuts.

"If you object to the local bus system you can still walk/bike/drive/carpool."

This is a better comparison.

"If you don't like how your ISP treats you in a large percentage of the time your options are 'Do without entirely' or 'Pay them anyway because there are no other alternatives available'."

Remember... the FCC literally HELPED make this happen.what do you expect when you are busy making deals with the devil?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

This is like saying if you don't like your ISP you can go to another ISP. They are all bound by the same regulations and operate nearly identically. It like arguing over who has the best plain peanut.. planters or tom's when they are both just peanuts.

Not quite, while the base service(banking or internet service) may be similar there are still distinctions that can determine 'better' or 'worse', such as price/costs, limits on use and so on.

Remember... the FCC literally HELPED make this happen.
what do you expect when you are busy making deals with the devil?

Because they weren't doing their job, and the previous head of the agency Wheeler got the boot before he could start changing that around too much. While his attempts at serving the public fell short at times he was at least trying to do so, something clearly not the case with the current head of the FCC.

As well even without the FCC you'd still have ISP's using their power to stifle competition and maintain their monopoly/duopoly positions, such that if you want to reign them in someone has to crack the whip, as it's crystal clear they completely lack the will to show the slightest bit of restraint left unchecked.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"While his attempts at serving the public fell short at times he was at least trying to do so,"

I do not share that opinion. I view wheeler as a weaker version of Pai. Zero rating still made it into the rule books.

Which brings me to my constant nag. You will easily settle for the lesser evil that is Wheeler, only because you suffered the likes of Pai. Had you never sufferred either of them, the first time Wheeler shows up, you would hate him as much as Pai.

It's all relative. You are so used to corruption in government that Wheeler's corruption is now acceptable while Pai's still is not. Eventually someone worse than Pai will come and you will think back on Pai with fond memories.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I do not share that opinion. I view wheeler as a weaker version of Pai. Zero rating still made it into the rule books.

Because he didn't go far enough, not because he wasn't trying.

You will easily settle for the lesser evil that is Wheeler, only because you suffered the likes of Pai.

False, people 'settled' for Wheeler because his actions, even if they didn't go far enough at times were generally in the direction of serving the public rather than the telecom industry. That he could have done better does not negate the fact that he was generally on the side of the public.

Had you never sufferred either of them, the first time Wheeler shows up, you would hate him as much as Pai.

Likewise false, Wheeler's history had people suspicious of him, but his actions mostly settled those concerns. Pai's actions on the other hand have instead provided rock solid confirmation that if anything people's concerns over who he really serves were vastly understated.

You are so used to corruption in government that Wheeler's corruption is now acceptable while Pai's still is not.

First, [Citation Needed] on 'Wheeler's corruption', and second if Wheeler's actions are considered acceptable while Pai's are not that might have something to do with how the two are not even remotely comparable. Pai is demonstrably worse for pretty much anyone who isn't a telecom company, whereas Wheeler had said companies flailing around in panic on more than one occasion due to his actions trying to reign them in.

Eventually someone worse than Pai will come and you will think back on Pai with fond memories.

You should really put that mind-reading and future sight of your to better use than leaving comments on a site like this. Or, you know, stop trying to pretend like you know what other people do/will think. Pai is a disaster, that someone worse might come along is not going to change this and magically transform him into a shining paragon.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"This is like saying if you don't like your ISP you can go to another ISP."

No, it isn't. Many people in the US only have the choice of 1 or 2 ISPs. That's the problem. Most people have a much wider choice of banks. Thanks to the internet, this choice is far wider for people in less urban communities than they ever were before.

It's the polar opposite situation.

"Remember... the FCC literally HELPED make this happen."

...because of lobbying and laws written by the very corporations you now support handing everything over to unregulated.

Why you continue to be against effective regulation is a mystery, but don't pretend you're not a corporate whore.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"is this another one of those "Just stop using the Internet," says guy on the Internet threads?"

No, not all all.

I do try to avoid being caught in the OMG! the internet is not working again!!! How will I pay my bills???I am going to get stuck with another late feeMy interest rates are going up because I was late paying some other unrelated billMy insurance is going up because I was late paying some other unrelated bill......

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I'm pretty sure he doesn't think they won't. Which is presumably he's against handing things over to the corporations in whose interest it is to make this happen, while you demand that happens with no regulation.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Provide any handle you wish, I won't judge you on that. I have certainly seen far sillier handles.

While I may disagree with your views, a person who provides a way to distinguish themselves from others and not hide behind anonymity when called out will always be a superior person than those who deliberately do that.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

That's very nice for you. How lucky you are to have a bank that's near you, and how lucky you are to have a job that allows you to get there while they're open, and how lucky you are to be able to spend time doing business in person.

Not everyone is so privileged. And there are functions much more critical than banking, like medical devices that rely on Internet connectivity to monitoring and control. These are KEEPING PEOPLE ALIVE who either would not have lived or would have had to be hospitalized at ruinous cost...and then faced death anyway once the money ran out.

You could argue, and in fact I've argued, that we screwed up by wiring the Internet so deeply into our society before we solved problems like the monopoly/duopoly, before we had universal access, before we had a solid regulatory framework in place that wasn't subject to political whims. But that's done. Here we are. And when, not if, the Verizons and Comcasts and Charters of the world start fucking around with connections in order squeeze out even more obscene profits, there will be all kinds of ensuing problems -- some of which will be trivial, like "my game doesn't work right", and some of which will be lethal.

And the worst of these will be visited on the people least-equipped to deal with them: the poor, the rural, the disadvantaged, the handicapped, the elderly. You'll be alright. I'll be alright. But that's only because we're fortunate beneficiaries of circumstance.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

My apologies for not making my statement clearer. I did not mean that removing your ability to access the internet would affect your banking ability. I meant that businesses themselves are so tied into the internet that many, if not all, cannot function without it. This includes banks.

If the owner of a bank were to cut ties to the internet, you could no longer use your debit/credit card, you couldn't withdraw money or write checks because the bank couldn't communicate to other businesses or financial institutions to process the deposits/withdrawals. The loss of internet for one "brick and mortar" establishment would bring you to your financial knees. That is regardless of whether you choose to do banking online or not.

To simplify my argument, ALL banks need the internet to continue to function. Without it they completely stop functioning. And it is not limited to banks, pretty much every business or organization is in the same situation. And like someone else argued, some businesses only do business online and everyone ditching the internet would completely destroy them.

Your suggestion is akin to taking a wrecking ball to a building to get rid of a cockroach infestation. It doesn't solve the problem and destroys things that didn't need to be.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I realize that banks need the internet to conduct business as do many other businesses, it makes me wonder why some are silent on this issue.

I was not trying to solve a worldwide problem, nor do I suggest that one particular action might be applicable everywhere. Guess I was ranting about how I avoid certain situations that may not end well. It is not about me, but I am pissed.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"I realize that banks need the internet to conduct business as do many other businesses, it makes me wonder why some are silent on this issue."

I can answer that.

They're silent for several reasons.

First, in the case of most banks, the amount of data they're transferring isn't that large. (There are exceptions of course. I consulted to one of them.) It's really not an exaggeration to say that your local bank branch could probably do most of us its business over a dialup-speed circuit.

Second, banks aren't using consumer connections: they're paying for business connections, because those come with SLAs that guarantee uptime, latency, speed, etc. These are unlikely to be affected when providers start screwing around with consumer circuits. Also note that there tends to be much more choice in business connections than residential ones, particularly in urban areas. (Not so much for the First Bank of East Nowhere, Nebraska.)

Third, banks aren't -- for the most part -- using the Internet the way end users are. You and I and half the country pull much more data down than we send up. We send tiny HTTP requests and get large web pages, music, video, PDF documents, interactive tutorials, images, etc. We send tiny DNS requests. We send a trickle of email. Network traffic in/out of banks is roughly symmetrical, by contrast.

Fourth, IF banks are affected, and that doesn't seem likely, they'll just pay for it, count it as an expense, and pass it on to customers...so that you and I will pay for it.

Finally, in the case of truly huge banks and similar financial institutions, the monopoly/duopoly won't screw with them because of who they are and the position they occupy in business. Comcast might throttle YOUR Netflix stream, but there is no way in hell they will ever, ever mess around with Goldman Sachs'.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Comcast might throttle YOUR Netflix stream, but there is no way in hell they will ever, ever mess around with Goldman Sachs'.

Of course they wont, They are charging a lot more for the connection as it is a business class connection, and also the banks were never cable customers, and they are not Netflix customers either.

Domestic users on the other hand are Netflix, or potential Netflix customers, and could cut out their cable subscription if they are given the bandwidth and unlimited data allowing them to switch to Netflix as their main source of entertainment.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Actually, it's far simpler than your list. Quite simply, banks will not only pay the tolls demanded by the major ISPs, they will probably negotiate them down to a minimum rate in exchnge for other service.

It's the small competitors to the ISPs other businesses and the end consumer who get screwed by NN being removed. Other large corporations will get along fine. So, you don't hear from banks on this issue because they are not affected one way or the other. You hear from people competing with, e.g Comcast's subsidiary businesses, because they will get royally screwed. It's that simple.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

My apologies if I misunderstood your position. I completely understand wanting to avoid situations that may not end well.

I was originally trying to address your statement about not doing business with any entity that only offers online only interaction. The point I was attempting to make is that in today's world that is nearly, if not completely, impossible.

Perhaps my bank analogy wasn't completely suitable as I thought you meant that consumers and businesses should cut off their internet access. It appears that I was mistaken and you were only talking about consumers. Maybe a better example would be companies that will only accept resumes online. How will you get a job if you can't send in your application/resume? Or what about telemedicine? Or lifeline monitoring systems for the sick and elderly? Those REQUIRE an internet connection to function. Some security systems also require an internet connection.

The point is, refusing to use the internet at all in protest of ISPs is simply not an option. All it does is make your life unnecessarily difficult and burdensome, if not downright impossible, and deprive you of many advantages of modern society. VERY few people will see that as a viable option because it is not a viable option and it continues to become less viable by the day as more and more of our lives are moved into the digital space.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Maybe a better example would be companies that will only accept resumes online. How will you get a job if you can't send in your application/resume? Or what about telemedicine? Or lifeline monitoring systems for the sick and elderly? Those REQUIRE an internet connection to function. Some security systems also require an internet connection."

"Yes, and as the internet becomes less useful these companies will explore alternative methods."

So, how many lost employment opportunities, dead elderly victims and burgled premises do you believe it will take before they do that? Especially since it won't be everybody who suffers, just the poor underclasses who can't pay the increased ransom, so it will take a very long time.

Yet again, your "free market will prevail" comes with a heavy cost, one not borne by simply providing effective regulation as seen elsewhere in the world.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"as the internet becomes less useful these companies will explore alternative methods"

You're claiming that businesses will change their business methods to try and capture the market that's not available via the internet. This will not happen.

The most likely thing is that people who cannot access a reliable internet connection will become a defacto underclass, since they have less access to everything from employment and education to banking and business services. Nobody's going to change their business models to accommodate those people, because they will by definition have less money and be less lucrative than the online community.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

That is actually not true. It can depend on the particular situation but many of our laws are based on this logic. Take the First Amendment for example. It protects all speech, not just good speech. Yes there are some narrowly defined exceptions but it does "protect "bad things" under the guise of keeping "good things" around".

Have you ever heard of the phrase "throwing the baby out with the bath water"? Quite literally it means just because some things are bad you don't throw out the good things just to get rid of the bad.

Getting rid of everything just because there are some bad things and we don't want to protect those is how you end up living under a dictator. Freedom is all about protecting everything, even if some bad stuff comes along because the good stuff is worth it. And if you don't protect both then you start down the slope of losing all your freedoms. As the writer of one of the cornerstones of our legal system said: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

Re:

The FTC has also been quite deliberately eviscerated by the current administration. This hasn't gone without notice and as a direct consequence, shady/unethical/dubious/dishonest businesses are ramping up their efforts to exploit the lack of enforcement while it lasts.

'Pointing out fatal flaw in defense of planned actions' = 'Desperation' now apparently

"This is just evidence that supporters of heavy-handed Internet regulations are becoming more desperate by the day as their effort to defeat Chairman Pai's plan to restore Internet freedom has stalled. The vote will proceed as scheduled on December 14."

"The cars are absolutely safe, and the chairman's decision to remove the requirements to have seatbelts from their design, which present an unfair constraint on the profi- driver will not in any way impact driver safety, as if all else fails the airbag will deploy and protect them."

"The cars have no airbag."

"Haha, Look at how desperate you are! Trying anything you can think of to undermine the chairman's plan to Restore Driver Freedom! Look people, look at the silly people objecting to the chairman's attempt to restore your freedom!"

"Also you've made it clear that if any state tries to force a car company to install airbags you'll be suing them and/or putting forth rules preventing them from doing so, ensuring that they aren't here now and won't be allowed so long as you're in charge."

Re: Wierd story

I think you are confused. When broadband was under Title I, the FTC tried to intervene when ISPs did bad stuff, only to be told by the court that they can't. [Source](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171204/10345738737/ajit-pai-doesnt-want-you-talking-abo ut-court-ruling-that-undermines-his-bogus-claim-that-ftc-will-protect-consumers.shtml).